Why 44 Mag over 45 Colt?

[jgh4445]

Thanks USSR..Awesome looking bullet.

 

[1411]

Biased but I prefer the 45lc round. I chose this round due to the versatility when reloading. I'm committed now and not looking back.

 

[eldon519]

I'm a .45 Colt guy. If I had to do it again, I'd probably be a .44 magnum guy. I'd prefer to be able to swap ammo freely between my Ruger SAs and S&W 29 in a .44 magnum world without worrying too much about how hot it was loaded. If you reload and don't mind making Specials, I wouldn't mind having a Charter Bulldog if I could find one that seemed well-made in person. Just from what I've seen, the .45 Colt Rugers do seem to be a bit rougher than their counterparts in other calibers as well.

I think reading stuff on Gunblast and from Linebaugh is partly what lead me over to the .45 Colt side, but honestly, a lot of what they preach doesn't really make sense. You know how the .45 Colt does about the same thing as the .44 magnum with lower pressure? You know how it does that? With about 10-15% more powder. You know what we call that in the engineering world? Inefficiency. It's not so different from high performance engines using higher compressions ratios. Also, the part about less recoil? It would be too small to ever really measure probably, but in theory, the .45 Colt will actually recoil more for the same bullet and same velocity because A) the gun will weigh less in the same model since it has less steel which translates to higher recoil free energy and B) more powder means heavier ejecta coming out the muzzle which means more rearward momentum. Likewise, so many people just focus on pressure without really understanding what it means in in terms of thrust and hoop stress. Stress/strain is the key regarding firearm longevity, and just operating at lower pressure doesn't tell nearly the whole story with regards to wear and tear on the gun.

 

[35 Whelen]

<snip> I think reading stuff on Gunblast and from Linebaugh is partly what lead me over to the .45 Colt side, but honestly, a lot of what they preach doesn't really make sense. You know how the .45 Colt does about the same thing as the .44 magnum with lower pressure? You know how it does that? With about 10-15% more powder. You know what we call that in the engineering world? <snip>

I think there's a lot of perceived voodoo surrounding the .44 Magnum...you know, it kills like crazy because...well...because it's a .44 Magnum! We, especially handloaders like myself, tend to slice, dice, puree', then over-analyze cartridges when really it's all very simple.

Is the .45 Colt less efficient than the .44 Magnum? Well of course it is!! And the .44 Magnum is less efficient that the .44 Russian, or the .44 Special, or the .41 Magnum and so on.

Will the 45 Colt do the same thing as the .44 Magnum only at lower pressures? Of course it will, just as the 300 Winchester Magnum will do the same thing as the 308 Win only at lower pressures. The caveat is they require more powder to do so. (Think 45-70 vs. 45-90; 45-90 vs. 45-110 and so on...)


Is the .44 Magnum more powerful than the 45 Colt? No, UNLESS it is loaded to high pressures. Larger cases hold more powder, so loaded to equal pressures as smaller cases, they are capable of propelling similar or heavier bullets to higher velocities than their smaller capacity counterparts. (Again, think 45-70 vs. 45-90; 45-90 vs. 45-110 and so on...)



Remember when the 7mm-08 hit the scene? It was a miracle cartridge! Why? Why, even though it's a smaller cartridge case, it could run a 140 gr bullet to higher velocities than the old, larger, worn out 7x57. Of course it could. It's loaded to higher pressures. Load a 7x57 to the same pressures as the 7mm-08 and it will outperform it every time, just as the 280 will outdo the 7x57, the 7mm Rem Mag will outdo the 280 and so on.

I think where the confusion lies regarding 44 Mag vs. 45 Colt is that folks compare a 36,000 psi .44 Mag load to a 25,000 (or less) psi 45 Colt load. Of course a 36K psi 44 Mag load is more powerful than a 25K psi 45 Colt load. But I believe that at some point, a .45 caliber bullet overtakes the .44 caliber in killing power long before the velocities of similar bullets are the same. This simply because a bigger hole kills better.

My .280 running a sleek, 160 gr. Nosler Partition at 2900 MV looks (on paper) a little better at 300 yds. than my old 35 Whelen with its .225 gr. X loafing along at less than 2700 fps, but I can tell you first hand which is better on elk; the bigger bullet.

Ching-ching= 2¢...

35W

 

[SDGlock23]

I agree that a bigger hole kills better. What I said earlier about comparing the .45 Colt to the 480 Ruger wasn't about power, it was about bullet size. If .44 guys can say there's no real difference between it and the .45 Colt, then I could say (based on bullet size) that there's no real difference between the .45 Colt and 480 Ruger, since there's about an equal amount of bullet size difference between them.

As for pressures, for a .44 to do what a .45 Colt can it takes more pressure even though the .45 Colt will take more powder. Loaded to the same pressure the .45 Colt will be more powerful, just like the 480 will be more powerful still. All three have plenty of power, but as a .45 Colt guy I wouldn't say it's as good as the 480 Ruger, it certainly cuts a bigger hole and can hold more powder. Seems like most .44 guys won't admit the same even though the .45 Colt cuts a bigger hole and hold more powder (read: potential) as well.

 

[WALKERs210]

I have made a minor search for information on the 44Mag and from this thread it looks like a bunch of guys that know what they are talking about. I have been looking for a revolver in 45L Colt to match with my 1892 reproduction rifle, I have found a very nice revolver in 44mag and in the back of my mind I seem to remember that the 44Mag will handle the 44Special also. While neither of the 44's are what I wanted I still like the revolver enough to just go ahead. My thinking is the 44spl would not be quite as violent as the 44Mag. Info would be greatly appreciated

 

[kludge]

Many publishers have watered down 25,000psi data. Hodgdon is the best source of data for both cartridges, particularly with heavy bullets.

It would be great if they listed a couple lead bullets under 300 grains though.

A 255gr and a 270-280gr for starters.

 

[eldon519]

35 Whelen,

I agree with everything you said, and I wasn't trying to introduce an idea that was unheard of or anything. What I was trying to do was point out that low pressure really isn't particularly desirable or useful to the shooter.



kludge,

Linebaugh has some data for the 260gr weight towards the bottom.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm

 

[BADUNAME30]

My complaint is that all the loading data I see is either factroy level, or Ruger Blackhawk only labeled. I'd like some heavy load data for those other revolvers.

Maybe try some older loading manuals. I would think that todays most recent printings may be on the conservative side.
Look for older Lyman manuals in particular.
You may also want to pick up Ken Waters' "Pet Loads" books.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Try back issues of Handloader and Rifle magazines. Brian Pierce has done several articles on the up-loaded .45 Colt, including discussions of revolvers that will take heavier loads than the SAA, but not so heavy as the Rugers.

 

[eldon519]

Accurate Powder has some loads topping out at 21,000 PSI. I think the idea here is that they could be used in any gun that is also chambered in .45 ACP such as a S&W 625 since the .45 ACP is also limited to 21,000 PSI vs 14,000 PSI for the .45 Colt. Just be careful if you use it because their "Jacketed Bullets" and "Lead Bullets" loads top out at 21kpsi, but their "Copper Bullets" go above 28kpsi and this is not specifically stated or separated as a different pressure category.
http://www.accuratepowder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/accurate_load_data_3.5.pdf

I'm not sure if you can use that in the Ruger New Vaqueros or not. Ruger does have some convertible New Vaquero .45ACP/.45Colt distributor exclusives, but just looking at them, the top strap seems thicker by my eye compared to the other New Vaqueros on the website. I don't know if it's built off the Flattop frame or a throwback to the Old Vaquero built off the Blackhawk frame.

 

[35 Whelen]

My complaint is that all the loading data I see is either factroy level, or Ruger Blackhawk only labeled. I'd like some heavy load data for those other revolvers.

Agreed. Go to www.loaddata.com and subscribe for $30 a year. There's an incredible amount of "between" data for the 45 Colt there. Money well spent, I assure you.

 

[420Stainless]

I have an unreasonable bias for the .45 Colt. Most of the time I really don't have a desire to shoot the magnum level loads and I like the larger diameter. However, there sure are a lot more double action and factory load options for the .44 Magnum. Might have to break down and get me one someday.

 

[Clark]

I think I own (2) 44 mags and (4) 45 Colts.

With 240 gr JHP 24 gr H110 in a 44 mag kicks about as much as 250 gr JHP 24 gr H110 in a 45 Colt.

I can hardly tell the difference shooting them.

 

[CraigC]

I agree that a bigger hole kills better. What I said earlier about comparing the .45 Colt to the 480 Ruger wasn't about power, it was about bullet size. If .44 guys can say there's no real difference between it and the .45 Colt, then I could say (based on bullet size) that there's no real difference between the .45 Colt and 480 Ruger, since there's about an equal amount of bullet size difference between them.

As for pressures, for a .44 to do what a .45 Colt can it takes more pressure even though the .45 Colt will take more powder. Loaded to the same pressure the .45 Colt will be more powerful, just like the 480 will be more powerful still. All three have plenty of power, but as a .45 Colt guy I wouldn't say it's as good as the 480 Ruger, it certainly cuts a bigger hole and can hold more powder. Seems like most .44 guys won't admit the same even though the .45 Colt cuts a bigger hole and hold more powder (read: potential) as well.

These statements are made in the face of "the .45Colt meets or exceeds .44Mag performance at lower pressures" or some variation on that theme. The differences are minor and the difference in diameter, as I said in my first post, is not the only factor. Extensive testing has shown that 1200-1300fps is about the balance point of killing ability and manageable recoil with cast bullets. Exceeding it doesn't gain you anything but range. So the question is really, what is the heaviest bullet that can be pushed to those velocities safely? For the .45Colt at 32,000psi, a 335gr with an SD of .234 just does make it to 1200fps. For the .44Mag, it's a 355gr with an SD of .274. If we're gonna argue that the .45's larger diameter is a factor in its favor, we have to also argue that the .44's higher sectional density is a factor in its favor. Not to mention that the .44 slings its heaviest practical bullet 200fps faster than the .45 can manage with its equivalent, the 395gr. By contrast, the .475 slings a 35gr heavier bullet 300fps faster. This is a recurring theme across the board.

IMHO, the .45Colt is only efficient when run at 50-55,000psi and compared to the .454. It's terribly inefficient at standard pressures, particularly compared to the .44Spl. Not quite as bad at Ruger only pressures compared to the .44Mag.

 

[Drail]

Given a standard frame size and weight the .44 mag. will have more steel in the barrel and cylinder walls and more weight. Probably the main reason that Elmer chose the .44 bore for his experiments.

 

[unspellable]

Efficiency

There has been much discussion here about thr efficiency of one cartrdige vs the other. In its technical sense, efficiency is more or less how many foot pounds of energy you can crank up with how much powder.

But as a noted gun writer stated, "Who gives a d**n about efficiency?"

I load for many different chamberings and about the last thing I ever worried about was efficiency.

 

[mavracer]

For the .44Mag, it's a 355gr with an SD of .274. If we're gonna argue that the .45's larger diameter is a factor in its favor, we have to also argue that the .44's higher sectional density is a factor in its favor.

One big problem people have when arguing this back and forth is you really can't know if you need a little bigger hole or a little deaper hole til after you see where the hole is. Luckily odds that it'll actually make a difference are tiny.

 

[USSR]

There has been much discussion here about thr efficiency of one cartrdige vs the other. In its technical sense, efficiency is more or less how many foot pounds of energy you can crank up with how much powder.

But as a noted gun writer stated, "Who gives a d**n about efficiency?"

I load for many different chamberings and about the last thing I ever worried about was efficiency.

+1. If you have to use 2 grains more powder to develop the same energy level, you are talking about half a cent more cost per cartridge. If you're looking for savings, there are much better places to look than that. And regarding the benefit of a higher SD, when you are already completely penetrating a game animal with a heavy bullet, there is zero benefit to using a bullet with a higher SD number.

Don

 

[35 Whelen]

Funny, we talk about efficiency with regards how much powder is required to propel such-and-such bullet X number of feet per second, yet no one talks about the inefficiency of loading a 395 gr. bullet to 1200 fps in a .44 Magnum and using it to shoot through a deer that would be just as penetrated and therefore just as dead if shot by a 250 gr. bullet at the same velocity.

So, is there such thing as an "inefficient" bullet, or loading bullets inefficiently?

 

[eldon519]

In regards to efficiency, all I was pointing out is how flawed the "it does the same as a .44 magnum with less pressure" argument is. It is more or less true, but it isn't really a good thing, despite what Gunblast and Linebaugh tell you. It's about like comparing two near-identical engines with near identical power curves and picking the one with worse MPG.

The reason I was trying to dispel that is I think this misconception is partly what steers a lot of people to the .45 Colt when it might not be the best choice for them. There really isn't much else to favor past 0.02":
-.44 magnum will launch any given weight faster than .45 Colt-Ruger (not even counting the specialty .44 +P loads out there)
-.44 magnum produces more power while being more powder efficient
-there is more .44 magnum reloading data out there
-there are more .44 magnum components out there meant for the actual magnum power level
-there are more .44 magnum platforms that can ALL handle the same full-power loads
-in my experience, the fit and finish is often better on the .44 mags vs. .45 Colt platforms and SAAMI dimensions for .44 are better defined

I'm not trying to trash the .45 Colt as I, myself, am a .45 Colt guy. It is a good caliber in both its original and hot-rod variations. But what led me that way was reading stuff from Linebaugh and Quinn that really doesn't quite stack up when looked at deeper than face-value. I first came across those writings while I was in high school, and it seemed great; why wasn't everyone shooting .45 Colt from a Blackhawk? It didn't take many semesters working towards my engineering undergrad to see that there was a little misrepresentation. As I mentioned previously in this thread, if I could do it all over again, I'd probably go .44 magnum. Still might, I've been eyeballing S&W 29s for some time now.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, much of this is academic. Interesting for discussion but like I've said since the beginning, we're not talking about huge differences. Mostly perception.

...yet no one talks about the inefficiency of loading a 395 gr. bullet to 1200 fps in a .44 Magnum and using it to shoot through a deer that would be just as penetrated and therefore just as dead if shot by a 250 gr. bullet at the same velocity.

I don't think anyone would argue that heavyweight bullets are necessary for deer. I also think that people should not assume that when I talk about 355gr .44's and 395gr .45's that I actually have a use for them. Or even use them at all, aside from amateur experimentation. In virtually every discussion on the subject, I share that my most used load is a 240gr SWC at 1100fps and that I scarcely have a need for any more than that.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

OK thanks, yep a 45 LC pushing 30,000CUP is a real thumper, they are showing loads up to 1455fps with a 250gr

Kachok, I have fired loads such as that out of my 7 1/2" Blackhawk, and I assure you, it is indeed a thumper.
I've shot 250 grain jacketed bullets with 26 grains of H110, and it wasn't even fun. I was picking flakes of black rubber from the Pachmyer grips out of the palm and heel of my hand.
That above mentioned load is WAY above SAMMI specs and should not be used...........in anything probably.

 

[kludge]

kludge,

Linebaugh has some data for the 260gr weight towards the bottom.
http://www.customsixguns.com/writings/dissolving_the_myth.htm

Have those loads been pressure tested, or are the CUP numbers a calculated guess?

The 16gr start 18gr max load for a 255gr is one that I've seen in various places, but that might be a 25kpsi load.

(I'm shooting a Redhawk and Super Redhawk, BTW.)

 

[eldon519]

kludge,

I think they have been actually pressure tested as Linebaugh references his pressure testing elsewhere in the article and references some work with H.P. White laboratory. If you want to know for sure you can call him though; his number is listed on the webpage.